1. Center for BioEnergy Research and Development A Multi-University/Industry Initiative Spanning North America A National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research Center Managing the Planning Grant Duane Abata, Coordinator http://bioenergynow.org January, 2009

2. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 2 Background  South Dakota School of Mines and Technology  South Dakota State University  Kansas State University  State University of New York Stony Brook  University of Hawaii  North Carolina University Universities Interested in Participating: University of Minnesota University of Illinois University of Kansas University of Tennessee University of Arizona Houston University Center for Bioenergy Research and Development

3. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 3 concept nine universities competition from Colorado universities planning grant proposal planning grant meeting main proposal first IAB meeting membership agreement Mar 06 Sept 06 Jan 06 Mar 08 Sept 07 Jan 09Dec 08 Dec 06 Nov 06 letter of intent

4. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 4 A Lighthouse in a Storm Managing the Industry/University Cooperative Research Center Denis O. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, NC S. George Walters, M.S., M.B.A., Ph.D. Management Studies, Rutgers University, NJ ISBN 1-57477-053-5, Battelle Press, 1998 http://www.ncsu.edu/iucrc/PurpleBook.htm

5. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 5 “... creating a center tends to be action-oriented. It involves much more than writing a successful grant proposal......the process is closer to planning and implementing a new business start-up. As a consequence, creating a new center is best understood as a process which is articulated over time, involves a series of steps, feedback loops, and periodic follow through.” -p 22, Walters and Gray

6. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 6 Essential Steps  Initial Concept  Multi-university Engagement  Industry Recruitment  Success with the Planning Grant  Industry Buy-In  Stumbling Blocks  Main Proposal/Award  Implementation

7. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 7 Successful Components of the Planning Grant Phase  Constant Communication (meetings, visits, teleconference calls) with site directors  Create Camaraderie, Excitement  Recruitment and Communication with Member and Potential Member Industries  Planning Grant Meeting  Website Development  Communication with University Administrations

8. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 8 Initial Website Development  Use ‘user-friendly’ software (e.g. MS FrontPage or Oracle Dreamweaver).  Place all pertinent information including purpose, structure, research focus areas, contact information, membership agreement, bylaws, etc., on the website.  Constantly update the website.  Take minutes of all meetings and place them on the website.

9. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 9 initially.... www.sdsmt.bioenergy.edu later changed to.... www.bioenergynow.org

10. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 10 Communication with Administration(s) “Be sure that all university and industry participants understand the I/UCRC model.” “Obtain university administration support. (Make the Office of the President of the university aware of the undertaking.)” -Walters and Gray, p42

11. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 11 Find Waldo Waldo = the most unpredictable component. Walters and Gray, Figure 3-1, p62

12. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 12 University Administration(s)  Will university administrators support a cross- disciplinary research center?  Will university administrators support a multi- university research center?  Will university administrators buy in to the Intellectual Property agreement of an I/UCRC?  Is university administration undergoing change?  Who are the university administrators?

13. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 13 Who Are the University Administrators? President Provost Vice President of Research Dean(s) Are there differences in philosophy between administrators? Is administration undergoing leadership change? Are there any egos involved? X 6 sites = chaos YES

14. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 14 Key Stumbling Blocks  Knowledge of the IUCRC concept  The Membership Agreement from Walters and Gray, Figure 2-2, p26

15. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 15 Elements of the Membership Agreement Walters and Gray, p75

16. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 16 A Place to Start Sample I/UCRC Membership Agreement. Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for ________ This agreement is made this _____ day of ________, 19__ by and between The University of __________ (hereinafter called “UNIVERSITY”) and ________________ (hereinafter called “COMPANY”). WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement intend to join together in a cooperative effort to support a Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for _________________ (hereinafter called “CENTER”) at the UNIVERSITY to maintain a mechanism whereby the UNIVERSITY environment can be used to perform research to ______________ _____________________. The parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: A. CENTER will be operated by certain faculty, staff and students at the UNIVERSITY. For the first four years the CENTER will be supported jointly by industrial firms, federal laboratories, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the state and the UNIVERSITY. B. Any COMPANY, Federal Research and Development organization, or any Government-owned Contractor Operated laboratory may become a sponsor of the CENTER, consistent with applicable state and federal laws and statutes. Federal Research and..... Walters and Gray, p83

17. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 17 Our Process Our Agreement was copied from an existing center at SDSMT The Agreement was submitted to NSF in both the Planning Grant proposal and the main proposal. Question: Do research administrators read the proposal during the sign-off process? Answer: No.

18. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 18 Our (temporary) Failure  All were clearly aware of its purpose, however we did not anticipate the level of rigor demanded by some administrators.  A workable and sellable Agreement is not necessarily a good thing to administrators. Intellectual property rights can be a bright red beacon in a dark night. Interestingly in our case, legal phraseology, appearance, (and egos) proved to be extremely important.

19. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 19 The Negotiation Process submitted document (version 1) Nov ’06versions 2, 3, 4minor corrections Mar ’07versions 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4minor edit changes by directors Sep ’08versions 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4changes by univ A and univ B Oct ’08versions 6, 7, 8changes by univ A and univ B Nov ’08version 11-15-08rewrite by univ C version 11-24-08rewrite by univ A, B, and C Dec ’08version 8frustrating re-submittal by directors version 12-01-08rewrite by univ A and B version 12-05-08rewrite by univ A and B version 12-15-08rewrite by univ B version 12-18-08edit changes by univ A and B version 12-19-08edit changes by univ A and B after consulting with all universities final versionaccepted and posted on website

20. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 20 Recommended Approach  try to work out the membership agreement before the main proposal  expect many misunderstandings  prepare for intense negotiation  anticipate time element  lightly imbibe in alcoholic beverages  keep calm and cool  don’t do what we did

21. I/UCRC Directors Meeting January 2009 21 On Our Way  Our IAB is scheduled for January 28 th, 2008 rescheduled from Dec 5 th.  We have a ‘workable’ agreement.  We are now ‘selling’ our agreement to membership industries. Thank you. Questions? Comments?